Service from terminal areas for VFR

[Rookie50]

Married thanks for being willing to comment. I have visited terminal and had very productive conversations there. I felt afterwards I understood much better terminals operational needs and how to best work within those for my missions, operating within terminal. I think for the record your guys do an excellent job mixing various traffic requirements within limited available space.

Thanks for engaging our community.

[photofly]

You forgot to mention your tail number.

[CpnCrunch]

We're getting slightly off topic here. It sounds like YYZ is actually delivering a reasonable service from what I'm reading here. The initial question was about YWG not delivering any service to VFR flights (or at least, a severely reduced service) due to staff shortages. Exactly the same thing is going on at YVR - something like 50% of days this summer we've had the class C NOTAM.

So the question is: when is Nav Canada actually going to hire enough staff to properly manage the airspace, rather than relying on the bare minimum?

[Big Pistons Forever]

So the question is: when is Nav Canada actually going to hire enough staff to properly manage the airspace, rather than relying on the bare minimum?

Never because it is almost entirely GA that is affected by VFR service restrictions. The airlines who have a majority of the seats on Navcanada's Board, and who pay the majority of Navcanada fees are not affected.

Hiring more controllers would cost money which would potentially increase fee's to the airlines who would not reap any advantage from the extra service. This is the downside of privatizing ATC. They are running it like a business so their actions are entirely rational and appropriate when subject to a cost benefit analysis.

As a taxpayer I am happy ATC got privatized. The system provides more ATC services overall, with much less taxpayer money at a lower overall cost to the industry, compared to when the government ran it. Unfortunately this model inevitably involves winners and losers and services to GA will always fall into the loser column because it will always cost way more than it pays. Navcanada will always try to provide the absolute minimum service to GA it can get away with, it is just business.

As a light plane owner I obviously would like to see better service but I am realistic enough to know that the good old days are gone for good and so now the challenge is to figure out how to get the maximum benefit out what service is left.

[Married a Canadian]

Been away for afew days so missed the last few posts.

I am sorry to hear about the problems out West...as I said in a previous thread though I am unable to comment on a situation that I am not part of.

As a light plane owner I obviously would like to see better service

I will however say that there is a disconnect between what some in the GA community "think" they should be receiving and what the reality actually is...(denied airspace entry, staff levels etc aside).
From a purely ATC/safety perspective....please don't come to me with some altitude that puts you in conflict with the majority of my traffic..be refused...and then say that it is a "service" issue. It isn't...it is a simple ATC issue.
I am not saying ATC can't sometimes be unreasonable and seemingly inflexible...but remember we also think the same sometimes about the pilot community when they grumble about stuff that to us is a complete no brainer (4500ft over YKZ when landing on the 24s at YYZ for one).

I hope things improve for both sides....but I will continue to stick up for YYZ terminal on this issue because I believe we provide the best service and altitude assignment possible for GA traffic in as close proximity to Canada's busiest airport allowable.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Married

Pretty much all of my VFR is flown on the West Coast so I am not familiar with the YYZ scene. The fundamental issue in YVR terminal airspace is the semi permanent summer NOTAM advising VFR pilots that Class C airspace may not be available and the fact that indeed pilots are being denied entry into airspace they want. While I appreciate that some requests for altitude and routings are impossible to accommodate, blanket prohibitions on the use of whole chunks of airspace is not providing a "service".

The issues driving this situation are complex but under staffing and the concomitant reduction in priority given to VFR GA traffic as management policy, is at the heart of the problem. I truly believe that the vast majority of YVR controllers are no more happier at denying service than I am, however I stand by my contention that nothing is going to change because of Navcanada's airline centric business imperatives and that GA pilots are just going to have to learn to adapt.

[photofly]

I am not saying ATC can't sometimes be unreasonable and seemingly inflexible...but remember we also think the same sometimes about the pilot community when they grumble about stuff that to us is a complete no brainer (4500ft over YKZ when landing on the 24s at YYZ for one).

You're reading what you want to see on the page, rather than what I wrote.

I'm very reasonable and flexible, flexible enough never fly over CYKZ at 4500.

[AirFrame]

I will however say that there is a disconnect between what some in the GA community "think" they should be receiving and what the reality actually is...(denied airspace entry, staff levels etc aside).
From a purely ATC/safety perspective....please don't come to me with some altitude that puts you in conflict with the majority of my traffic..be refused...and then say that it is a "service" issue. It isn't...it is a simple ATC issue.

In the Vancouver area, we have established, published, VFR routes that are intended specifically for VFR traffic to transit across the water to the island. Even on those routes, which you would think were positioned to avoid major commercial traffic to/from Vancouver and Victoria, you can be denied safe altitudes for water crossings on a sunny weekend.

I have been monitoring both terminal and tower frequencies at YVR, requested altitude for crossing, been denied, and then heard *nothing* on either frequency transiting the water for my entire crossing. In fact, it's usually so quiet that I forget I even have a frequency tuned at all. But if a commercial flight pops up, like a beaver or twin otter crossing from YVR harbour to YYJ harbour, they'll *offer* that traffic higher for the crossing. More often than not, the amphibs will decline the higher altitudes... They don't need them for safety. The frequency will go quiet again, no thought to offer their spot to the lonely GA aircraft putting along.

As a light plane owner I obviously would like to see better service but I am realistic enough to know that the good old days are gone for good and so now the challenge is to figure out how to get the maximum benefit out what service is left.

Squawk standby, keep eyes peeled, and keep climbing. We need anarchy to fix this.

[CpnCrunch]

In the Vancouver area, we have established, published, VFR routes that are intended specifically for VFR traffic to transit across the water to the island. Even on those routes, which you would think were positioned to avoid major commercial traffic to/from Vancouver and Victoria, you can be denied safe altitudes for water crossings on a sunny weekend.

On the back of the VTA (or perhaps the CFS) it says something along the lines of "routes via East Point to White Rock in class C above 4000ft available when class C terminal access is restricted". I take that to mean that even when the class C NOTAM is in effect, you'll still ALWAYS get permission to fly at 4500 or 5500 East Point to White Rock. Are you saying even that routing is denied?

[Big Pistons Forever]

On the back of the VTA (or perhaps the CFS) it says something along the lines of "routes via East Point to White Rock in class C above 4000ft available when class C terminal access is restricted". I take that to mean that even when the class C NOTAM is in effect, you'll still ALWAYS get permission to fly at 4500 or 5500 East Point to White Rock. Are you saying even that routing is denied?

I have been refused that route above 2500. I don't even ask anymore I just fly over at 2500 and wear a life jacket.

[16SidedOffice]

East point to White Rock is US airspace delegated to ZVR. I do remember being told at some point way back when that with the arrangement with the FAA that they aren't supposed to restrict VFR's for altitude safe crossings. They may however refuse certain routes due to airspace design or traffic.

You won't hear YVR tower denying altitudes for single engined crossings but that being said they can only offer up to 2500 as it is.

[AirFrame]

On the back of the VTA (or perhaps the CFS) it says something along the lines of "routes via East Point to White Rock in class C above 4000ft available when class C terminal access is restricted". I take that to mean that even when the class C NOTAM is in effect, you'll still ALWAYS get permission to fly at 4500 or 5500 East Point to White Rock. Are you saying even that routing is denied?

Yes.

You won't hear YVR tower denying altitudes for single engined crossings but that being said they can only offer up to 2500 as it is.

Nobody calls YVR Tower, we call YVR Terminal. YVR Terminal manages the airspace above 2500' from Whiterock to Point Roberts to about 1/4 of the way to East Point. Whiterock direct East Point is managed by YYJ Terminal. They manage the airspace above 2500' along that route. Either way, both terminal controllers can certainly authorize altitudes above 2500'. Despite being US airspace, NavCanada is managing it via an agreement with the FAA. I wonder if a call to the FAA to report that NavCanada is not allowing aircraft to use the airspace would get any results?

It's frequently easier to just go Whiterock to East Point, because YYJ Terminal is a delight to work with compared to YVR. They rarely deny a higher crossing on that route (or at least, i've never been denied).

Leaving Langley (or coming from Pitt, Chilliwack, etc) it's a lot nicer to just start a cruise climb from somewhere near Langley up to 4500' for the crossing. To do that you have to climb *over* the Abbotsford extension. But YVR Terminal manages that airspace, and they always say no. So you have to either stay under Abbotsford's extension, then call YYJ Terminal and do your steep climb to 4500' over the water, or you can call Abbotsford as well and climb through their space... But that airspace *is* frequently quite busy so I generally don't bother.

[16SidedOffice]

I have been monitoring both terminal and tower frequencies at YVR, requested altitude for crossing, been denied, and then heard *nothing* on either frequency transiting the water for my entire crossing. In fact, it's usually so quiet that I forget I even have a frequency tuned at all. But if a commercial flight pops up, like a beaver or twin otter crossing from YVR harbour to YYJ harbour, they'll *offer* that traffic higher for the crossing. More often than not, the amphibs will decline the higher altitudes... They don't need them for safety. The frequency will go quiet again, no thought to offer their spot to the lonely GA aircraft putting along.

I was just responding to your own post.

It's frequently easier to just go Whiterock to East Point, because YYJ Terminal is a delight to work with compared to YVR. They rarely deny a higher crossing on that route (or at least, i've never been denied).

I suppose you really didn't read my post above.

[CpnCrunch]

Last time I crossed I just called up Vic Terminal and they scooted us over, through Abbotsford's airspace and right up to Langley without us having to call YVR or YXX. Same on the way back. There weren't any class C NOTAMs that day. They didn't give us the Active Pass->Birch Point shortcut we asked for, but at least we weren't denied, and they made our entry into Langley very smooth. Overall I consider that very good service.

Now I think the only option is to go via the longer northern route via Lasqueti, skirting around the northern edge of Vancouver's airspace. I don't mind flying at 2500 and being out of gliding distance of land for a couple of miles, but my passenger doesn't feel comfortable doing it.

[leftoftrack]

Toronto and Edmonton do seem to be able to maintain appropriate staffing levels, should one of those absorb the Winnipeg centre? There has to be allot of efficiencies earned by consolidating into Toronto or Edmonton. Plus it wouldn't hurt to have controllers that handle the likes of YYC or YYZ showing YWG terminal what busy is.

[Rookie50]

Flying all the time in Toronto airspace, and having a little time in New York, Washington and central Florida airspace ( which is unbelivably crowded with students), and receiving smooth handling even in poor weather, I do find these issues at smaller centers amusing, especially when the traffic is referred as "saturated" ( as once told to me referring Ottawa terminal working 5 airplanes )

[Braun]

Flying all the time in Toronto airspace, and having a little time in New York, Washington and central Florida airspace ( which is unbelivably crowded with students), and receiving smooth handling even in poor weather, I do find these issues at smaller centers amusing, especially when the traffic is referred as "saturated" ( as once told to me referring Ottawa terminal working 5 airplanes )

You do know YOW TCU is in YUL ACC which is by far not a ''small'' center. If you think traffic is based on just numbers you truly have no understanding of how ATC works. Anywhere in the world. You can have 2 a/c's and be very busy and another day have 10 and having it go really smooth. FYI, YOW TCU is usually a 1 controller position who does ARR/DEP/VFR all combined so complexity can sometimes be increased by the mix of traffic. I would really love to hear your horror stories about the TCU's within YUL ACC (YOW, YQB, YUL). Because I have worked them all and would be glad to enlighten you on your misunderstandings.

[Rookie50]

Flying all the time in Toronto airspace, and having a little time in New York, Washington and central Florida airspace ( which is unbelivably crowded with students), and receiving smooth handling even in poor weather, I do find these issues at smaller centers amusing, especially when the traffic is referred as "saturated" ( as once told to me referring Ottawa terminal working 5 airplanes )

You do know YOW TCU is in YUL ACC which is by far not a ''small'' center. If you think traffic is based on just numbers you truly have no understanding of how ATC works. Anywhere in the world. You can have 2 a/c's and be very busy and another day have 10 and having it go really smooth. FYI, YOW TCU is usually a 1 controller position who does ARR/DEP/VFR all combined so complexity can sometimes be increased by the mix of traffic. I would really love to hear your horror stories about the TCU's within YUL ACC (YOW, YQB, YUL). Because I have worked them all and would be glad to enlighten you on your misunderstandings.

No horror stories. All I can go on is perceptions, and I've visited YYZ terminal in person, which I would submit is fairly busy, and from flying in and listening to (different) airspace. Not aiming to offend, but as others have relayed here for other FIR's when the frequency is extremely (apparently) quiet -- I am as interested as others to learn color on why service is impaired to GA at times in certain TCU's.

So -- feel free to enlighten our mis-understandings. Because having flown right into the NY metro area -- fairly or unfairly that creates a perception. If its staffing, it's staffing, fine I get that.

I'll ask one specific question, but am also looking for other color. Why -- for me at least twice -- are Ifr clearances requested from uncontrolled airports not able to be given on the ground within Ottawa TCU? (by telephone).
Perhaps this has changed, I don't know.

[thenoflyzone]

Request a pop-up after the initial denial upon entering cancel the chronic staffing issues (max overtime) that Winnipeg deals with should be dealt with by closing the centre and consolidating it to a location where staffing isn't an issue. Remember your paying their salary and their not providing you an appropriate level of service

Let's be clear on one thing ... A VFR paying 70 bucks or so a year of NavCan fees isn't paying anyone's salary.

The people who pay our salary are the IFR operations, especially the commercial ones. An A320 flying IFR from YVR to YUL will incur NavCan fees of 1860$. A B77W on the same run will cost the airline 4895$ in NavCan fees.

This is PER plane, Per direction, Per day. Now you do the math and tell me who pays my salary.

And let's be clear on something else. These IFR fees are amongst the lowest in the industry. NavCan hasn't raised IFR fees in over 9-10 years, if not more.

Something to think about when we vector VFRs around busy commercial airports and traffic.

Now this being said, this doesn't mean i will only focus my attention on IFR flights and avoid/restrict the VFR's. Not at all. In fact, here at YOW/YQB terminals, we go out of our way in order to accomodate VFR flights, gliders, balloons, etc. Very rarely will we deny access in class D/C airspace because of short staffing issues (which we have the majority of summer I might add !), as they do in YVR or YWG centers/terminals.

I'll ask one specific question, but am also looking for other color. Why -- for me at least twice -- are Ifr clearances requested from uncontrolled airports not able to be given on the ground within Ottawa TCU? (by telephone).
Perhaps this has changed, I don't know.

Because taking off VFR is the quickest option that will get you airborne and going were you want to. However, no one is forcing you to do so. If you are unable, simply say so, and we will give you an IFR clnc on the ground.

I understand the inconvenience of copying your IFR clearance in the air, but the other option is a CV time 15-20 minutes away, and a CC time 2 minutes after that. Especially at CYRO and CYRP. We need to protect for your departure, (hence the short departure window) and that involves a coordination with the enroute sectors as well. Quickest option for you is to takeoff VFR. Pure and simple.

Thenoflyzone

[photofly]

This is PER plane, Per direction, Per day. Now you do the math and tell me who pays my salary.

Forgive me, I thought NavCanada paid your salary. Or do radar tags now have $$$ attached to them?